Oscar Pistorius: Justice served?

By Reza Golzadeh

So far disgraced athlete Oscar Pistorius has won everything from paralympic medals to even murder charges, and only receives a 5 year term, serving most of it at the comfort of his own home. The only thing he may have lost so far is the prevention of an appeal by prosecutors, and that’s it.

Can’t win them all

Our award-winning Oscar has managed to receive only five years for ending the life of another person and barely spends it behind bars. Oscar may miss Rio 2016 but that won’t stop him from attending other Olympics or Paralympics after his term. What more can one with blood on his hand want?

However, his latest attempt to challenge the appeal by prosecutors failed. Last year, Judge Masipa granted permission to have Pistorius' negligent killing conviction reviewed. Prosecutors hope to have Pistorius found guilty of the more serious charge of murder. According to this ruling, the double amputees case looks set to go to South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal. Supreme Court of Appeal would then review Masipa's initial verdict. This still leave a glimmer of hope for the victim’s family.

A trip down memory lane

The year-long wait for the verdict of South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has left many, including the family of the victim, Reeva Steenkamp’s Mother and Father, devastated, disgusted and deprived of justice.

For those who have forgotten the disaster, once a South African super star, Oscar Pistorius, fatally blasted 4 shots at his partner - a model, law graduate, and more importantly a child of a loving father and mother - on Valentine's Day of 2013 at his home in Pretoria. Reeva was in the lavatory when Oscar decided to shoot away at what he thought was an intruder.

It is undeniable that South Africa’s crime rate is high, making it common for many to resort to firearms in case of self-defense. According to BBC News Magazine’s How dangerous is South Africa?, around 50 people are murdered in the African nation on a daily basis. The Huffington Post published its top ten countries with the highest murder rates based information retrieved from the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime 2012 report; South Africa came in ninth and is “still one of the most dangerous countries in the world,” according to the article. And it is not just homicide that is devastating, according to an article in the International Business Times: In South Africa, “a woman is killed by domestic violence on average every eight hours.” But does this mean that every woman should have the right to possess fire-arms for self-defense?

Having a crime problem does not give the right for people to shoot at any entity behind a door, especially when having no knowledge of that entity. What worsens the fact is that Pistorius has a history with guns. The man we knew as a perfect role model for future paralympians has been indicted on two separate gun-related charges; the first being the blade “gunner” recklessly shooting his gun out of the open sunroof of a car last year, and the second, accidentally firing someone else's handgun while at a restaurant. Surprisingly, the second incident happened weeks before he killed his partner. So to conclude, our trigger-happy tough guy should not be around fire-arms, period.

But when comparing common sense with common law, two different fates emerge for our man of mystery. Common sense would dictate that once you kill a person, then the criminal must be labeled as a murderer and punish for such an act of murder. Consequently, common sense would label Mr. Pistorius a murderer. However, as Cornell University Law would describe it, common law murder is defined as one “killing another human being with malice aforethought”: This is also known as “Intent-to-kill murder”. However, due to the insufficient evidence claiming that Oscar Pistorius deliberately shot dead Reeva Steenkamp, Judge Thokozile Masipa found Pistorius not guilty on charges of premeditated murder and common-law murder. Instead, Judge Masipa declared Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide or manslaughter.

The proof is in the pudding

But it is as though some of the truly vital evidence presented in court played no part at all in influencing the verdict. It seems quite strange that someone who hears noises at night fails to first check for their loved ones before beginning to assume that he or she may be faced with an intruder and decides to fire away lethal ammunition. It is also worth asking, why would Pistorius’ account differ to that of the evidence? If he has not done anything wrong then why tell the jury that the both went to sleep at 10 pm, when the state pathologist revealed that Reeva ate within two hours of her death at 3am.

Another important point that also seems to be disregarded is the sounds of screams heard by the first witness Michelle Burger. Living on a nearby estate, she said she heard screams: "She (Reeva) screamed terribly and she yelled for help… Just after her screams, I heard four shots. Four gunshots. Bang ... bang, bang, bang.”

Pistorius’ bad temper strengthens the murder mystery. Reeva’s mobile was retrieve at the murder scene inside the lavatory with the deceased. Investigators found messages sent to Pistorius which disclose his uncontrollable temper: "I'm scared of you (Oscar) sometimes and how you snap at me and how you will react to me."

It was surprising to hear the judge state the accused as a “very poor witness" and noticed how "often a question requiring a straightforward answer turned into a debate about what another witness did or said." Judge Masipa admitted that the accused gave “the impression that he was more worried by the impact his answers might cause rather than the questions asked.” Pistorius’ peculiar behavior and response to the questions in court may have seemed striking to all, but even that did not succeed in changing the verdict – even though Judge Masipa’s final words would have you be believe that she is not buying Pistorius’ alibi: The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and to conduct himself reasonably… Court is satisfied that at the relevant time, the accused could distinguish between right and wrong”.

The verdict

So, what now for the disgraced athlete? Well, with this verdict - culpable homicide - Oscar avoids life imprisonment, therefore the 25 to life sentence is out the window. On 21 October 2014, Mr. Pistorius was sentenced to a maximum of five years for the death of Reeva Steenkamp. It doesn’t stop there, he servers only a minimum of 10 months behind bars, and the rest will be under correctional supervision. Therefore, one could avoid a murder sentence with the killing of another human-being behind a lavatory door and walk free; what more can a criminal want?

The system

Is the South African legal system failing the people, once again? We had the Apartheid system which forced many indigenous people of the land out of their homes and mistreated. Such prejudices violated the rights of the people at that time, and now we have another systematic mess-up here in the 21st century, where a white man walks free after killing his partner with his own gun, inside his own house. When a country with a crime problem has to handle a high profile figure committing an act of homicide, it ought to rise to the occasion and take the opportunity to reshape its unimpressive imagine, especially when the whole world is watching. But it fails to do so, and therefore the answer to the question is yes, the system is failing to yet again bring justice to a land that has cried and begged for years to make right what has been wronged for decades.

What could one expect from a mixed legal system, a 'hybrid' of a number of distinct legal traditions all interwoven together; a civil law system inherited from the Dutch, a common law system inherited from the British, and a customary law system inherited from indigenous Africans. Normally, one would think that even mixing laws might even benefit the country, but in this case, apparently the legal system, or just only judge Masipa, sees Pistorius fit for society.

Truth hurts

One would have to admit though, it’s is truly a shame to realize the first amputee to win an able-bodied world track medal commit such a heinous crime, breaking the hearts of everybody around him and shattering his own impeccable reputation. This time a crowd did not gather to cheer the man who once made history in the world of athletics, instead, they gathered with banners reading “Rot in jail if Found Guilty”. Even though he may walk away with what he has done, his Oscar-winning Crocodile tears won’t help rebuild his reputation in the public eye, even though the system of the country has allowed him to do so.

What would you do as a parent?

Imagine if Reeva was your child, receiving 4 shot – one in the head and three on the body- one day before Valentine’s. Would you forgive and forget? The mother of the decease certainly does not. June Steenkamp slams the result: “This verdict is not justice for Reeva”. Luckily, many along with Reeva’s family are immune to the tears that shed from Oz. June certainly is immune to Pistorius’ Oscar-winning tears:

“I really don't care what happens to Oscar… It's not going to change anything because my daughter is never coming back. He's still living and breathing and she's gone, you know, forever.”

NN

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk